United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1996 HQ Rulings > HQ 003812 - HQ 113322 > HQ 088386

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 088386




May 31, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 088386 DFC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6216.00.4600

District Director of Customs
909 First Ave, Rm 2039
Seattle Va. 98174

RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 3001-90-101324

Dear Sir:

This protest was filed against your amended Notice of Redelivery dated November 2, 1990, against entry no. XXX-XXXXXXXX dated October 16, 1990, covering a shipment of gloves manufactured in Korea.

FACTS:

The "brown camouflage" gloves involved, style 44, were entered on October 16, 1990, under subheading 6216.00.4400, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), as gloves, mittens and mitts, other, of man-made fibers, ski or snowmobile gloves, mittens and mitts, with duty at the rate of 5.5 percent ad valorem.

Upon examination of a sample of the style involved your office determined that the gloves were not ski gloves for tariff purposes. As a result an amended DF 4647 dated November 2, 1990, was issued stating that the gloves were not admissible in the absence of a quota textile visa in Category 631 and were classifiable under subheading 6216.00.4945, HTSUSA, as gloves, mittens and mitts, other, of man-made fibers, other, with duty at the rate of 22 cents/Kg plus 11 percent ad valorem.

However, it should be noted that Congress passed technical amendments to the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-382) which were signed into law by the President on November 5, 1990. Among these amendments subheading 6216.00.4400, HTSUSA, under which the gloves in issue were entered, was redesignated as subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, and amended to read as follows:

"Other gloves, mittens, and mitts, all the foregoing specially designed for use in sports, including ski and snowmobile gloves, mittens, and mitts"

This amendment applied with respect to the "brown camouflage" gloves entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after October 1, 1990.

It should be noted that neither subheading 6216.00.4400, HTSUSA, under which the gloves were claimed to be classifiable, nor the new subheading 6216.00.4600, HTSUSA, was or is subject to quota restraints or visa requirements.

ISSUE:

Are the gloves specially designed for use in the sport of skiing?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

The rationale expressed for the position that these gloves are not ski gloves for tariff purposes is as follows:

Our position on this issue is that the importer must demonstrate that the gloves are principally used in skiing. Evidence such as sales, marketing strategies and advertisements to support his claim of ski glove should be furnished. The burden of proof is on the importer. In HQ 085561 dated 12-6-89 on a X-country ski glove headquarters stated upon examination of this glove and its use, proven and advertised, Customs believes that the merchandise at issue will be principally used in cross-country skiing.' In HQ 082421 dated 7-25-90 HQ stated . . . the presence of the features set forth in Stonewall does not mandate he conclusion that a glove is specially designed for use in skiing.'

It also appears that style 44 gloves were not considered ski gloves because they do not belong to a class or kind of glove recognized as a ski glove.

It should be noted that the amended provision for ski gloves is not a use provision, but rather is a "specially designed for use" provision. Consequently, there is no need to show that the gloves are principally used in the sport of skiing.

The classic case with respect to whether gloves are specially designed for use in the sport of skiing is Stonewall Trading company v. United States, 64 Cust., Ct., 482, CD 4023 (1970). In that case the gloves involved were found to possess the following features which were characteristic of ski gloves, rendering them specially designed for use in the sport of skiing.

(1) a hook and clasp that hold the gloves together;

(2) an extra piece of vinyl stitched along the thumb portion to meet the stress caused by the flexing of the knuckles when the skier grips the ski pole;

(3) an extra piece of vinyl with padding reinforcement and inside stitching, which is securely stitched across the middle of the glove where the knuckles bend and cause stress; and

(4) cuffs with an elastic gauntlet to hold the glove firmly around the wrist, so as to be waterproof, and to keep it securely on the hand.

An examination of a sample gloves, which you state are similar in all material respects to style 44, persuades us that they are clearly designed for use in the sport of skiing and meet the criteria set forth above for being considered ski gloves for tariff purposes.

Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 085561 cited as precedent for not considering the instant gloves as ski gloves is
not relevant because cross country ski gloves have never been subject to the same four features as "normal" downhill gloves. Additionally, HRL 082421 also cited as precedent for not considering the instant gloves as ski gloves is cited correctly, but goes on to conclude that "]a[s soon as one of the necessary features is absent, we must decide whether the gloves in fact are specially designed for use in the sport of skiing."

It is our position that the color of the gloves is not germane to their classification. It should be noted that the gloves which were the subject of HRL 085642 dated October 17, 1989, were camouflage gloves although that was not stated. Those gloves were classified as ski gloves.

You have informed us that these gloves sometimes have a "hunter" tag attached. The importer states that the "hunter" tag is used on all types of their gloves. It is our view that the presence of the "hunter" tag on these gloves does not preclude classification as ski gloves in this instance because the gloves have been found to be "specially designed for use in the sport of skiing."

HOLDING:

The camouflage gloves, style 44, are classifiable under subheading 6216.00.46, HTSUS.

The protest should be allowed in full. Inasmuch as the gloves are not subject to quota restraints or visa requirements, you should withdraw your Notice of Redelivery. A copy of this decision should be attached to your Form 19 Notice of Action to be sent to the protestant.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: